Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?


I hear that the music fidelity of a multi-channel AV Receiver/Integrated amp can never match the sounds produced by a 2 channel system. Can someone clearly explain why this is so?

I'm planning to upgrade my HT system to try and achieve the best of both worlds, I currently have a 3 channel amp driving my SL, SR, C and a 2 channel amp driving my L and R.
I have a Denon 3801 acting as my pre. Is there any Pre/Proc out there that can merge both worlds with out breaking my bank? Looking for recommendations on what my next logical steps should be? Thanks in advance.
springowl
I'm joining this thread a little late, but have some thoughts on how the recording industry could properly use surround channels to optimize music recording. This is based on the idea that music has been historically recorded in 2-channel formats, and I'm including some thoughts about recording. I'm not sure if anyone is familiar if any of this has been tried or is being done, but would be curious to know. Let me preface all of this by saying I am no expert, so if some of my terminology is not accurate, please forgive me.

When sound is recorded, microphones are used. One of the simplest ways to make a stereo recording is with a "coincident pair" of microphones. This involves placing a pair of microphones at roughly what the listening distance would be away from the sound source in a criscross patern. One mic feeds the left channel, the other the right. Pretty simple. The next thing to do would be to add "room ambiance." In many pop music recordings, this is done with electronic signal processors to the recorded signal. However, if one were to, say, record a string quartet with a coincident pair in a small auditorium (left and right channel) and then place two additional microphones, one on either side of the rear of the room, could these not be used to provide "surround" information for the rear channels? I suppose additonal mics could also be placed for "back" channel information in a 7.1 setup. Not really sure what to send to the center channel, though.

Anyhow, I just wanted to throw this out there.

Cheers,
Mike
When I used to sell audio, I noticed that there were two kinds of customers.....those interested in music and those who seek sound effects. This division seems to have been exacerbated by the introduction of multi-channel.

And Eldartford brings to the forefront an important observation too. Home theater is pretty much car stereo brought indoors.

Regardless of its theoretical potential, HT remains a poorly executed medium. And absurd. Does anyone remember quadrophonic headphones?
smear

any more channels not set up correctly get smeared

how many recordings really take advantage of multi channel

usually it's the solo projected to the back

more is not better
It's Not, according to recent developments at IAR.
International Audio Review! See 30 page review.

They say, the Arcam AV8 and DVD 27 is the ultimate.

They review amplifiers, speakers, turntables,
but there doesnot seem to be amy preamplifer reviews;
I suspect because they feel the there is no use, when
the arcam setup properly kicks everything elses butt!

I'm thinking of packing it in with two channel and convert what I can to home theatre.
I find there is so many great concerts to watch and listen to that is seems rather boring to just listen to two channel.

It seems that my extremely cheap home theatre system
sounds 85% of my extremely expensive two channel.

I guess there is diminishing returns on high end.

I now what your thinking, my high end gear is crap right.
Wrong, my friends think my system sounds better than most stuff in the so-called hiend stores. Maybe that's why their my freinds haha.

Seriously I think that most will agree that your home theatre system is in around the same level compared to your two channel stuff.

So I think it's possible that the Arcam might be that good!

What sayest thou?